Cook and Cohen, "How Television Sold the Panama Invasion"
http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/panamainv.html

The following article, reprinted here with permission, appeared in the
January- February 1990 issue of Extra!, a publication of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), and
examines the role played by mainstream US media in selling the
invasion of Panama to the American public and performing in their
expanding function as state propagandists.

The Media Goes to War:

HOW TELEVISION SOLD THE PANAMA INVASION

by Mark Cook and Jeff Cohen

TWO weeks after the Panama invasion, CBS News sponsored a public
opinion poll in Panama that found the residents in rapture over what
happened. Even 80 percent of those whose homes had been blown up or
their relatives killed by US forces said it was worth it. Their
enthusiasm did not stop with the ousting of Gen. Manual Noriega,
however. A less heavily advertised result of the poll was that 82% of
the sampled Panamanian patriots did not want Panamanian control of the
Canal, preferring either partial of exclusive control by the US
("Panamanians Strongly Back US Move," New York Times, 1/6/90).

A "public opinion poll" in a country under martial law, conducted by
an agency obviously sanctioned by the invading forces, can be expected
to come up with such results. Most reporters, traveling as they did
with the US military, found little to contradict this picture. Less
than 40 hours after the invasion began, Sam Donaldson and Judd Rose
transported us to Panama via ABC's Prime Time Live (12/21/90).
"There were people who applauded us as we went by in a military
convoy," said Rose. "The military have been very good to us [in
escorting reporters beyond the Canal Zone]," added Donaldson.

While this kind of "Canal Zone journalism" dominated television, a
few independent print journalists stuck out on their own. Peter
Eisner of Newsday's Latin American Bureau, for example, reported
(12/28/89) that Panamanians were cursing US soldiers under their
breath as troops searched the home of a neighbor--a civilian--for
weapons. One Panamanian pointed out a man speaking to US soldiers as
a "sapo" (a toad--slang for "dirty informer") and suggested that
denouncing people to the US forces was a way of settling old scores.
A doctor living on the street said that "liberals will be laying low
for a while, and they're probably justified" because of what would
happen to those who speak out. All of Eisner's sources feared having
their names printed.

The same day's Miami Herald ran articles about Panamanian citizen
reactions, including concern over the hundreds of dead civilians:
"Neighbors saw six US truck loads bringing dozens of bodies" to a mass
grave. As a mother watched the body of her soldier son lowered into a
grave, her "voice rose over the crowd's silence: `Damn the
Americans.'"

Obviously there was a mix of opinion inside Panama, but it was
virtually unreported on television, the dominant medium shaping US
attitudes about the invasion. Panamanian opposition to the US was
dismissed as nothing more than "DigBat [Dignity Battalion] thugs"
who'd been given jobs by Noriega. And it was hardly acknowledged that
the high-visibility demonstration outside the Vatican Embassy the day
of Noriega's surrender had been actively "encouraged" by the US
occupying forces (Newsday 1/5/90).

Few TV reporters seemed to notice that the jubilant Panamanians
parading before their cameras day after day to endorse the invasion
spoke near-perfect English and were overwhelmingly light-skinned and
well-dressed. This in a Spanish-speaking country with a largely
mestizo and black population where poverty is widespread. ABC's
Beth Nissen (12/27/89) was one of the few TV reporters to take a close
look at the civilian deaths caused by US bombs that pulverized El
Chorillo, the poor neighborhood which ambulance drivers now call
"Little Hiroshima." The people of El Chorillo don't speak perfect
English, and they were less than jubilant about the invasion.

"Our Boys" vs. Unseen Civilians

In the first days of the invasion, TV journalists had one overriding
obsession: *How many American soldiers have died?* The question,
repeated with drumbeat regularity, tended to drown out the other
issues: Panamanian casualties, international law, foreign reaction.
On the morning of the invasion, CBS anchor Kathleen Sullivan's voice
cracked with emotion for the US soldiers: "Nine killed, more than 50
wounded. How long can this fighting go on?" Unknown and unknowable
to CBS viewers, hundreds of Panamanians had already been killed by
then, many buried in their homes.

YOU BE THE JUDGE

* "[The invasion was legal] according to all the experts I
talked to."--Rita Braver (CBS Evening News, 12/20/89)

* "As far as international law is concerned, even sources in
the US government admit they were operating very near the
line."--John McWethy (ABC World News Tonight, 1/5/90)

* "The territory of a state is inviolable. It may not be the
object, even temporarily, of military occupation or other
measures of force taken by another state directly or
indirectly on any grounds whatsoever."--Article 20, OAS
Charter

Judging from the calls and requests for interviews that poured into
the FAIR office, European and Latin American journalists based in the
US were stunned by the implied racism and national chauvinism in the
media display. The Toronto Globe and Mail, often referred to as the
New York Times of Canada, ran a front-page article (12/22/89)
critiquing the United States and its media for "the peculiar jingoism
of US society so evident to foreigners but almost invisible for most
Americans."

TV's continuous focus on the well-being of the invaders, and not the
invadees, meant that the screen was dominated by red, white and blue
draped coffins and ceremonies, honor rolls of the US dead, drum rolls,
remarks by Dan Rather (12/21/89) about "our fallen heroes"...but no
Panamanian funerals. This despite the fact that the invasion claimed
perhaps 50 Panamanian lives for every US citizen killed.

When Pentagon pool correspondent Fred Francis was asked on day one
about civilian casualties on ABC's Nightline (12/20/89), he said he
did not know, because he and other journalists were traveling around
with the US army. Curiosity didn't increase in ensuing days. FAIR
called the TV networks daily to demand they address the issue of
civilian deaths, but journalists said they had no way of verifying the
numbers.

No such qualms existed with regards to Rumania, where over the
Christmas weekend CNN and other US outlets were freely dishing out
fantastic reports of 80,000 people killed in days of violence, a
figure--greater that the immediate Hiroshima death toll--which any
editor should have dismissed out of hand. Tom Brokaw's selective
interest in civilians was evident when he devoted the first half of
NBC Nightly News (12/20/89) to Panama without mentioning non-
combatant casualties, then turned to Rumania and immediately referred
to reports of thousands of civilian deaths.

Due Process Mugged

You've seen it everywhere. It made the cover of Newsweek,
the front page of the New York Times' "Week in Review", and
the CBS, NBC and ABC news: Manual Noriega's mug shot,
looking just like the criminals at the end of each "Dragnet"
episode after Sgt. Joe Friday had brought them to justice.

But what you didn't often see is an acknowledgement that the
release of such mug shots is highly unusual, and may threaten
Noriega's already slim chances of getting a fair trial. The
Miami U.S. Attorney's office claims to have released it "under
pressure from the press," according to the New York Times
(1/14/90). "We will not comment very frequently on this case,"
U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen said, calling that "the key to
success." Sure, as long as the media are willing to publish
prosecution leaks without regard to the defendant's
constitutional rights.

[Below this are two covers:]
Newsweek (1/15/90) has "NORIEGA'S NEXT HOME? America's New
Alcatraz" at the top; followed by "EXCLUSIVE The Noriega
Files; His Treacherous Links With the Drug Cartel, Castro,
Bush and the CIA", accompanied by a picture of a Noriega mug
shot--he in a T-shirt holding the sign:
"U.S. MARSHAL, MIAMI, FL, 4.1.5.8.6. .0.0.4. '90"

New York Post (1/5/90) has "CANNED PINEAPPLE" covering half
it's cover, with a subhead "Arrogant Noriega: I'm a political
prisoner"; the bottom half shows two photos: one of Noriega
surrounded by three police officers restraining him, and the
other, the same mug shot as Newsweek.

Not until the sixth day of the Panama invasion did the US Army
augment its estimated dead (23 American troops, 297 alleged enemy
soldiers) to include a figure for civilians: 254. The number was
challenged as representing only a fraction of the true death toll by
the few reporters who sought out independent sources: Panamanian
human rights monitors, hospital workers, ambulance drivers, funeral
home directors. These sources also spoke of thousands of civilian
injuries and 10,000 left homeless. Many journalists, especially on
television, were too busy cheerleading "the successful military
action" to notice the Panamanians who didn't fare so successfully.

TV correspondents, so uncurious about civilian casualties, could not
be expected to go beyond US military assurances about who was being
arrested and why. As the Boston Globe noted (1/1/90), US forces
were arresting anyone on a blacklist compiled by the newly-installed
government. Newsday's Peter Eisner reported (1/7/90): "Hundreds of
intellectuals, university students, teachers and professional people
say they have been harassed and detained by US forces in the guise of
searching for hidden weapons."

CENSORED NEWS: Drug Links of Panama's New Rulers

The Bush White House justified the invasion by claiming that
overthrowing Noriega was a major victory in the war on drugs.
If journalists had reported the backgrounds of the new
Panamanian leaders installed by the US invasion, and their
connections to drug-laundering banks and drug traffickers, a
primary rationale for the invasion would have been shredded.

But few journalists scrutinized Panama's "new democrats"
from the country's banking and corporate elite. One who did
was Jonathan Marshall, editorial page editor of the Oakland
Tribune. In a series of editorials, "Panama's Drug, Inc."
(1/5 & 1/22/90), Marshall reported the following:

PRESIDENT GUILLERMO ENDARA is a wealthy corporate attorney
for several companies run by Carlos Eleta, a Panamanian
business tycoon arrested in Georgia last April for conspiring
to import more than half a ton of cocaine each month into the
US. The Brazilian daily, Jornal do Brasil, reported that
Endara was Eleta's lawyer for 25 years and a direct
stockholder in one of his companies. Endara's political
mentor and idol is former President Arnulfo Arias, who
reportedly amassed $2 million from smuggling contraband,
including hard drugs.

VICE PRESIDENT GUILLERMO "BILLY" FORD is a co-founder and
part owner of the Dadeland Bank, in Miami, a repository for
Medellin drug cartel money. One of Ford's co-owner's,
Panamanian Steven Samos, used the bank in the late 1970s to
launder millions of dollars in drug money for a CIA-trained
Cuban American. Panama's new ambassador to the US, Carlos
Rodriguez, is also a co-founder of the Dadeland Bank. (The
New York Times on Jan. 28 mustered up Roberto Eisenmann, the
publisher of Panama's La Prensa, to deny allegations linking
Ford to money laundering. The Times didn't mention that
Eisenmann is another co-founder of the bank.)

ATTORNEY GENERAL ROGELIO CRUZ served as a director of the
First Interamericas Bank. The bank, closed down for drug-
related "irregular operations" in 1985, was owned by the
leader of Columbia's Cali cocaine cartel and reportedly
laundered money for Jorge Ochoa of the Medellin cartel.
Panama's new chief justice of the supreme court and new
treasury minister were also members of the bank's board.

Marshall concluded: "President Endara's appointments read
like a who's who of Panama's oligarchy. Many have personal
or business associations with the drug-money laundering
industry." Portraying Noriega's replacement by the Endara
clique as a strike against drug dealing is a cruel joke.

The importance of Panama to the international narcotics
trade has long revolved around its supersecret banks--cool
places to launder "hot money." In December 1986, Noriega's
legislature pushed through a rollback in the country's bank
secrecy law. In May 1987, when Noriega's government froze
accounts in 18 banks as part of an anti-drug operation mounted
by the DEA, it sparked a massive banking crisis in Panama.
The actions were vigorously opposed by Noriega's foes in the
banking elite. These foes now run Panama's government thanks
to the US invasion. The "war on drugs" continues.

The "Objective" Reporter's Lexicon: We, Us, Our

In covering the invasion, many TV journalists abandoned even the
pretense of operating in a neutral, independent mode. Television
anchors used pronouns like "we" and "us" in describing the mission
into Panama, as if they themselves were members of the invasion force,
or at least helpful advisors. NBC's Brokaw exclaimed, on day one:
"We haven't got [Noriega] yet." CNN anchor Mary Anne Loughlin asked
a former CIA official (12/21/89): "Noriega has stayed one step ahead
of us. Do you think we'll be able to find him?" After eagerly
quizzing a panel of US military experts on "MacNeil/Lehrer" (12/21/89)
about whether "we" had wiped out the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF),
Judy Woodruff concluded, "So not only have we done away with the PDF,
we've also done away with the police force." So much for the
separation of press and state.

Ted Koppel and other TV journalists had a field day mocking the
Orwellianly-titled "Dignity Battalions," but none were heard
ridiculing the invasion's code-name: "Operation Just Cause." The day
after the invasion, NBC Nightly News offered its own case study in
Orwellian Newspeak: While one correspondent referred to the US
military occupiers as engaging in "peacekeeping chores," another
correspondent on the same show referred to Latin American diplomats at
the OAS condemning the US as a "lynch mob." After the Soviet Union
criticized the invasion as "gunboat diplomacy" (as had many other
countries), Dan Rather dismissed it as "old-line, hard-line talk from
Moscow" (CBS Evening News, 12/20/89).

Journalism gave way to state propaganda when a CNN correspondent
dutifully reported on the day of the invasion: "US troops have taken
detainees but we are not calling them `prisoners of war' because the
US has not declared war." (That kind of obedient reporter probably
still refers to the Vietnam "conflict.") Similarly, on Day 1, many
networks couldn't bring themselves to call the invasion an invasion
until they got the green light from Washington: instead, it was
referred to variously as a military action, intervention, operation,
expedition, affair, insertion.

"NORIEGA OFFERED HIS USUAL DAMP LIMP
HANDSHAKE TO BUSH'S FIRM GRIP."

For sheer propaganda, high marks go to Newsweek's Noriega
cover story (1/15/90) featuring excerpts from a book about
Noriega by Wall Street Journal reporter Frederick Kempe.
The book and its author were much touted by the media during
the invasion. Some highlights:

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST ELLIOTT ABRAMS. "By the summer of
1985, the State Department's new Assistant Secretary of State
for Latin American Affairs, Elliott Abrams, began to believe
that Noriega's help for the Contras was overestimated and his
general harm to democracy and human rights was underestimated.
Abrams had come out of State's human rights office..."

Abrams hardly "came out" of a human rights office. He was
put there to disseminate anti-Nicaragua war propaganda as
human rights information, an operation repeatedly exposed and
denounced by Americas Watch. Abrams "human rights" work
included attacks on the church-based Sanctuary movement, which
offered refuge to Central Americans fleeing death squads.

A careful reading of the Newsweek article leaves the
sneaking suspicion that much of the material was provided by
Abrams himself. "[Abrams] argued at several interagency
meetings that backing the Contras could only be one part of
an overall strategy of promoting democracy in the region. He
wanted more pressure on Panama to democratize--without
endangering the good relationship that existed."

FIRM, REFINED BRAHMIN VS. LIMP, MESTIZO BASTARD. "The two
intelligence chiefs contrasted in style and substance: Bush
was lanky and refined, raised by a Brahmin New England family.
He towered over the five-foot five-inch Noriega. Noriega was
mean-streets Mestizo, the bastard son of his father's
domestic. Noriega offered his usual damp, limp handshake to
Bush's firm grip. They were clearly uncomfortable with each
other." Aside from the racism of the piece, the line about
the two being uncomfortable with each other is significant-
-primarily to protect Bush. A second later: "Only in the
twisted mind of Manuel Antonio Noriega could that 1976
luncheon with George Bush be construed as the beginning of a
beautiful friendship." Though it lasted for more than ten
years.

BUT IT WAS ALL CASEY'S FAULT. George Bush wasn't
responsible for the ongoing ties to Noriega. The guy to
blame, according to Kempe, was--as usual--the CIA director
William Casey. Casey met often with Noriega to discuss aid
to the contras.

AND CASTRO'S, OF COURSE. Kempe makes a herculean effort
with scant evidence to implicate Fidel Castro in all the drug
dealing. But as other journalists have pointed out, Castro's
main need for Noriega and Panama was as a haven for Cuban
front companies to engage in legitimate trade with Western
countries in circumvention of the US economic blockade (Miami
Herald, 12/28/89). An editorial in Kempe's Wall Street
Journal (1/8/90) called on the US to cut a deal with Noriega
if he'd implicate Castro.

A WALK ON THE HOMOPHOBIC SIDE. Perhaps aimed at bolstering
the anti-gay vote in support of the invasion, Newsweek ran
a sidebar from Kempe's book under the headline, "A Walk on
the Bisexual Side": "The macho officer [Noriega], proficient
in judo and parachuting, would perfume himself heavily on off
hours and wear yellow jump suits with yellow shoes, travel
the world with a male pal with whom he was widely rumored to
be having a torrid affair, and surround himself with openly
gay ambassadors and advisers...Armchair psychiatrists credit
Noriega's sexual confusion to his gay brother, Luis Carlos
Noriega, the only person Noriega ever trusted completely."

Where Did Our Love Go?

Many reporters uncritically promoted White House explanations for its
break-up with Noriega. Clifford Krauss reported (NY Times, 1/21/90)
that Noriega "began as a CIA asset but fell afoul of Washington over
his involvement in drug and arms trafficking." ABC's Peter Jennings
told viewers on the day of the invasion, "Let's remember that the
United States was very close to Mr. Noriega before the whole question
of drugs came up." Actually, Noriega's drug links were asserted by US
intelligence as early as 1972. In 1976, after US espionage officials
proposed that Noriega be dumped because of drugs and double-dealing,
then-CIA director George Bush made sure the relationship continued
(S.F. Examiner, 1/5/90; New Yorker, 1/8/90). US intelligence
overlooked the drug issue year after year as long as Noriega was an
eager ally in US espionage and covert operations, especially those
targeted against Nicaragua.

Peter Jennings' claim that the US broke with Noriega after the
"question of drugs came up" turns reality upside down. Noriega's
involvement in drug trafficking was purportedly heaviest in the early
1980s when his relationship with the US was especially close. By
1986, when the Noriega/US relationship began to fray, experts agree
that Noriega had already drastically curtailed his drug links. The
two drug-related indictments against Noriega in Florida cover
activities from 1981 through March 1986 ("Analysts Challenge View of
Noriega as Drug Lord," Washington Post 1/7/90).

Objective Journalists of State Propagandists?

* "one of the more odious creatures with whom the United
States has had a relationship."--Peter Jennings (ABC,
12/20/89)

* "At the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and
scums."--Dan Rather ( CBS, 12/20/89)

* Q: "Do we bring him here and put him on trial...or do we
just neutralize him in some way?"--John Chancellor
A: "I think you bring him here and you make it a
showcase trial in the war on drugs and justice prevails."-
-Tom Brokaw ( NBC, 12/20/89)

*"We lose numbers like that in large training exercises."-
-John Chancellor, commenting approvingly upon hearing only
nine US soldiers had died ( NBC, 12/20/89)

* "Noriega's reputation as a brutal drug-dealing bully who
reveled in his public contempt for the United States all
but begged for strong retribution."--Ted Koppel ( ABC
Nightline, 12/20/89)

* "Noriega asked for this. President Bush listed all the
things Noriega had done to force him to take this action.
Why does Noriega do these things?"-- CNN anchor Ralph
Wenge, interviewing a former US military commander
(12/21/89)

* "Noriega seemed almost superhuman in his ability to
slither away before we got him."--Anchor Bill Beutel
( WABC-TV, New York, 1/3/90)

* "[George Bush has completed] a Presidential initiation
rite [joining] American leaders who since World War II have
felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood
to protect or advance what they construe as the national
interest...Panama has shown him as a man capable of bold
action."--R.W. Apple ( New York Times, front page news
analysis, 12/21/89)

When, as vice president, Bush met with Noriega in Panama in December
1983, besides discussing Nicaragua, Bush allegedly raised questions
about drug money laundering. According to author Kevin Buckley,
Noriega told top aide Jose Blandon that he'd picked up the following
message from the Bush meeting: "The United States wanted help for the
contras so badly that if he even promised it, the US government would
turn a blind eye to money-laundering and setbacks to democracy in
Panama." In 1985 and '86, Noriega met several times with Oliver North
to discuss the assistance Noriega was providing to the contras, such
as training contras at Panamanian Defense Force bases ("Noriega could
give some interesting answers," Kevin Buckley, St. Petersburg Times,
1/3/90). Noriega didn't fall from grace until he stopped being a
"team player" in the US war against Nicaragua.

Democracy had as little to do with the break-up as drugs. If
Noriega believed Bush had given his strongarm rule a green light in
1983, confirmation came the next year when Noriega's troops seized
ballot boxes and blatantly rigged Panama's presidential election.
Noriega's candidate, Nicolas Ardito Barletta, was also "our"
candidate--an economist who had been a student and assistant to former
University of Chicago professor George Shultz. Though loudly
protested by Panamanians, the fraud that put Ardito Barletta in power
was cheered by the US Embassy. Secretary of State Shultz attended his
inauguration. (See "The Press on Panama," Extra! , Mar/Apr 88;
Richard Reeves, San Francisco Chronicle, 12/25/89)

As the Noriega case progresses toward trial, the media's treatment
of key witnesses against the General may offer a case study in bias.
Several of the witnesses have already testified on these matters in a
very public forum--hearings before Senator John Kerry's Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Narcotics. At that time, February 1988, they
fingered Nicaraguan contras as cocaine cohorts of Noriega operating
under the umbrella of the CIA and Ollie North. The hearings were
ignored or distorted by national media outlets, with Reagan/Bush
officials and CIA dismissing the witnesses as drug trafficking felons.
( Extra!, Mar/Apr 88; Warren Hinckle, S.F. Examiner, 1/11/90). In
a predictable turnaround, as soon as Noriega was apprehended, TV news
brought forth experts to explain that "when one prosecutes someone
like Noriega for drug dealing, witnesses will of necessity be drug
dealers."

Reporters Rallying Round The Flag

Journalists justified their role as distributors of
government handouts in different ways. Asked on Day 1 why US
opponents of the invasion were virtually invisible on-the-air,
a CBS producer (who declined to give her name) told
Extra! : "When American troops are involved and taking
losses, this is not the time to be running critical
commentary. The American public will be rallying around the
flag."

Some TV reporters claimed they were forced to rely on
official US versions because they had nothing else. As
Newsday reported Jan. 14, "Peter Arnett, a Pulitzer Prize-
winning combat journalist, was reduced to reporting on
Noriega's alleged pornography collection. `They [the
Pentagon] got away with it again,' Arnett said of the initial
press blackout."

Arnett, who covered the invasion for CNN, was complaining
that Pentagon officials failed to provide photo opportunities
of wounded soldiers, suffering civilians and general bang-
bang. Naturally the Pentagon did everything possible to
prevent such shots, keeping with its belief that the Vietnam
War was lost in American living rooms. "Two things that
people should not watch are the making of sausage and the
making of war," Newsday (1/4/90) quoted an Air Force doctor
as saying. "All that front-page blood and gore hurts the
military."

Experienced combat journalists like Arnett should know that
the Pentagon's aim is to manipulate the pictures and stories
that get out. "If you just looked at television, the most
violent thing American troops did in Panama was play rock
music," political media consultant Robert Squier told
Newsday. "They feel if they can control the pictures at the
outset, it doesn't make a damn what is said now or later."

Unhappiness with the Pentagon did not keep reporters from
promoting the US Army-approved image of Noriega as a comic
strip arch-villain. The Southern Command told reporters soon
after the invasion that 110 pounds of cocaine were found in
Noriega's so-called "witch house," and this played big on TV
news and the front-pages. When, a month later the "cocaine"
turned out to be tamales ( Washington Post, 1/23/90, page
A22), the government's deception was a footnote at best. The
initial headlines of Noriega as drug-crazed lunatic had served
their purpose: to convince the American people that he
represented a threat to the Canal.

Provocations of Pretexts?

The US media showed little curiosity about the Dec. 16 confrontation
that led to the death of a US Marine officer and the injury of another
when they tried to run a roadblock in front of the PDF headquarters.
The officers were supposedly "lost." In view of what is now known
about the intense pre-invasion preparations then underway ( NY Times,
12/24/89), is it possible the Marines were actually trying to track
Noriega's whereabouts?

The Panamanian version of the event was that the US soldiers, upon
being discovered, opened fire--injuring three civilians, including a
child--and then tried to run the roadblock. This version was largely
ignored by US journalists even after the shooting two days later of a
Panamanian corporal who "signaled a US serviceman to stop," according
to the administration. "The US serviceman felt threatened," the
administration claimed, after admitting that its earlier story that
the Panamanian had pulled his gun was false ( NYT, 12/19/89)

As for the claim that a US officer had been roughly interrogated and
his wife had been sexually threatened, the administration provided no
supporting evidence ( NYT, 12/19/89; Newsday, 12/18/89). Since
the Marine's death and the interrogation were repeatedly invoked to
justify the invasion, the lack of press scrutiny of these claims is
stunning.

For months, US forces had been trying to provoke confrontations as a
pretext for an attack. In response to an Aug. 11 incident, Panamanian
Foreign Minister Jorge Ritter asked that a UN peacekeeping force be
dispatched to Panama to prevent such encounters. The US press largely
ignored his call ( El Diario/La Prensa, New York's Spanish-language
daily, 8/13/89).

Fighting in Panama: The Home Front

The President

DOING THE INEVITABLE
------------
A SENSE OF INEVITABILITY
IN BUSH's DECISION TO ACT

Bush Reportedly Felt That Noriega
'Was Thumbing His Nose at Him'

If the news of the invasion wasn't favorable enough to the
administration, the New York Times sometimes fine-tuned it
between editions. Above are headlines over the same story in two
editions on Dec. 24--the earlier one (left) was apparently changed
because it implied that the invasion was an act of personal
vengeance by Bush. Another headline in the same early edition read,
"U.S. Drafted Invasion Plan Weeks Ago," accurately describing the
article's evidence that the invasion was scheduled before the
"provocations" that justified it ever occurred. The headline
changed to the more innocuous "U.S. Invasion: Many Weeks of
Rehearsals."

The "Declaration of War" That Never Was

"When during the past few days [Noriega] declared war on the United
States and some of his followers then killed a US Marine, roughed up
another American serviceman, also threatening that man's wife, strong
public support for a reprisal was all but guaranteed," Ted Koppel told
his Nightline audience Dec. 20.

Noriega never "declared war on the United States." The original
Reuters dispatches, published on the inside pages of the New York
Times (12/17-18/89), buried the supposed "declaration" in articles
dealing with other matters. In the Dec. 17 article headlined,
"Opposition Leader in Panama Rejects a Peace Offer from Noriega,"
Reuters quoted the general as saying that he would judiciously use
new powers granted to him by the Panamanian parliament and that "the
North American scheme, through constant psychological and military
harassment, has created a state of war in Panama." This statement of
fact aroused little excitement at the White House, which called the
parliament's move "a hollow step."

The day after the invasion, Los Angeles Times Pentagon
correspondent Melissa Healey told a call-in talk show audience on C-
SPAN that Noriega had "declared war" on the United States. When a
caller asked why that hadn't been front page news, Healey explained
that the declaration of war was one of a series of "incremental
escalations." When another caller pointed out that Panama had only
made a rhetorical statement that US economic and other measures had
created a state of war, the Pentagon correspondent confessed ignorance
of what had actually been said, and suggested that it was certainly
worth investigating.

The incident symbolizes media performance on the invasion--dispense
official information as gospel first, worry about the truth of that
information later. It's just what the White House was counting on
from the media. The Bush team set out to control television and front
page news in the first days knowing that exposes of official deception
(such as Noriega's 110 pounds of "cocaine" that turned out to be
tamales) would not appear until weeks later buried on inside pages of
newspapers. Rulers do not require the total suppression of news. As
Napoleon Bonaparte once said: It's sufficient to delay the news until
it no longer matters.

Besides uncritically dispensing huge quantities of official news and
views, the TV networks had another passion during the first days of
the invasion: polling their public. It was an insular process, with
predictable results. A Toronto Globe and Mail news story summarized
it (12/22/89): "Hardly a voice of objection is being heard within the
United States about the Panama invasion, at least from those deemed as
official sources and thus likely to be seen on television or read in
the papers. Not surprisingly, given the media coverage, a television
poll taken yesterday by one network ( CNN ) indicated that nine of
ten viewers approved of the invasion."

I'm not Rappaport...I'm Valdez

Extra! usually complains about media outlets relying on
the same sources again and again, but KTTV-TV in Los Angeles
may have gone too far in the opposite direction.

Seeking a source to comment on the failed October 1989 coup
against Manuel Noriega, the station called what they thought
was the Panamanian consulate. In fact, it was the home of
Kurt Rappaport, a 22-year old prankster. Rappaport,
pretending to be an anti-Noriega Panamanian diplomat, "Arturo
Valdez," was invited to be interviewed, and showed up at the
studio sporting a false moustache.

A sound bite from the 10-15 minute "Valdez" interview was
broadcast on KTTV 's evening news, phony Spanish accent and
all. ( LA Times, 10/7/89) But Rappaport was not treated
any differently than most TV experts: "I get asked tougher
questions when I go to cash a check," he told the National
Enquirer.

Swallowing Hokum in Central America

During the height of the civil rights movement, Southern
authorities frequently reacted to the bombing of a black
church or a civil rights leader's home by blaming the act on
the Movement: "The Negroes did it themselves. It's a stunt
to win sympathy." While the innuendo that Martin Luther King,
Jr. would have fire-bombed his own home while his children
slept was prominently and uncritically reported in Southern
dailies, journalists from national media ignored such hokum or
reported it as a way of highlighting how depraved or dishonest
the authorities were.

Ironically, the same absurd scenarios dismissed by
journalists when uttered by segregationists about Southern
blacks are treated as entirely credible when uttered by US
officials about Central Americans.

EXECUTION OF PRIESTS BY SALVADORAN SOLDIERS, Nov. 16, 1989:

Journalists knew instantly that the US-equipped Salvadoran
army, with a history of execution-style slayings, had control
of the Jesuit university grounds and that the martyred priests
had been outspoken advocates of seating the FMLN guerrillas at
the negotiating table. Yet when US officials played dumb,
pretending not to know whether the killers were "far rightists
or leftists," and when Salvadoran authorities asserted that
the FMLN had murdered their advocates, these statements
received credible coverage in some media. The fog was still
thick a month later when Newsweek reported (12/25/89) that
the priests had been murdered "by a presumed rightist death
squad." Through such phrases, centrist media obscure the fact
that the "rightist death squads" are an integral part of
Salvador's military structure. (See Amnesty International's
1988 report, "El Salvador `Death Squads'--A Government
Strategy.")

MURDER OF NUNS BY NICARAGUAN CONTRAS, Jan. 1, 1990:

Days
after the US relied largely on the death of a single US
citizen to justify its invasion of Panama, two nuns--one an
American--were killed when their pickup truck was ambushed in
northeastern Nicaragua. The attack occurred in an area in
which the contras--who have killed dozens of civilians in
recent months--were known to freely roam. Initial media
coverage gave play to Nicaragua's charges that the contras
were responsible and to contra claims that the Sandinistas had
impersonated contras killing the nuns.

By Day 2, the murders were not worthy of mention on CBS
and ABC nightly newscasts. By then Mexican and Latin
American press agencies had found two eye-witnesses who
identified the contras as the killers of the nuns. The story
took two weeks to break in the US and when it did, the
Washington Post broke it in a news story that read like a
White House-sanctioned editorial (1/14/90): "There was little
doubt that it was contra rebels who killed them. But there is
also little doubt that the US-backed guerrillas did not mean
to do it." The Post proceeded with an unsourced claim
reminiscent of the innuendo once aimed at Martin Luther King:
"In Managua, the capital, some suspected immediately after the
attack that the Sandinistas might have staged it to appear to
be a contra ambush. After all, only the Sandinistas...could
benefit from such an atrocity."

By giving credence to claims which obscure the violence
caused by US-backed forces in Central America, some in the
national media seem to be impersonating the Southern cracker
reporters of 30 years ago.

As an indication of the on-going intent to obfuscate the true scope and impact
of US military activities in and results of the invasion, the following item
appeared in the July 4 issue of the San Francisco Bay Guardian :

U.S. SOLDIERS HARASS U.S. FILM CREW IN PANAMA

by Jim Crogan

IN A PANAMANIAN refugee camp last month, soldiers from the U.S.
Southern Command confronted a U.S. film crew that was interviewing
Panamanian refugees. The soldiers attempted to stop the interviews
and confiscate the videotape and equipment. An estimated 500
residents of the camp surrounded and protected the crew and hid its
taped footage.

The crew, from Ronin Films (aka the Santa Monica-based Empowerment
Project) returned to Los Angeles this week.

Barbara Trent, EP's co-director and the director and co-producer of
the Panama film, told the Bay Guardian her crew's confrontation with
Southern Command military police and members of the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigations Division [CID] took place at the Allbrook Field
Displaced Persons Camp, a civilian war refugee facility administered
jointly by the Panamanian Red Cross and the Panamanian government's
Office of Disaster Assistance.

"The camp was exclusively a Panamanian facility, and we had
permission to be there from Panamanian disaster authorities, the Red
Cross and the council set up by the refugees to govern the camp, so I
didn't understand why SouthCom people were even there," said Trent.
"The refugees saved the day for us," she added. "They got between us
and the military, surrounded us and eventually walked us over to the
office used by the Disaster Assistance people. They even hid our
tapes.

"The people wanted us there," Trent continued, "because they
desperately wanted to tell the world about the losses they suffered
during the invasion, and the camp conditions they've been forced to
live under for the last six months."

During the incident, which she said her crew captured on film, the
CID people refused to explain to her or the Panamanian officials why
or on whose authority they were trying to stop the filming.
Eventually, after a series of negotiations between the Panamanians and
representatives from SouthCom, the EP crew finished its interviews and
left the camp.

Lt. Col. Robert Donley, deputy director of public affairs for
SouthCom, said the MP's actions were "definitely wrong. They are
there only to assist the Panamanians and had no authority to
intervene."

Asked why Army CID officials were participating in trying to stop
the EP crew from filming, Donley said, "That's a good question. I
really don't know and haven't been able to find out why."

Gary Meyer, co-director of EP and co-producer of the film, said the
crew also brought back several interviews that apparently describe the
U.S. use of laser weapons during last December's invasion. One
Panamanian said he saw "a bright red light, which made a distinctive
sound that he repeated for us on camera, and was then followed by an
explosion," Meyer said. Another family said they had an intense white
light come through their apartment window and explode whatever object
it hit."

Trent added that several people said they had seen "a Panamanian
soldier killed by a laser beam."

Trent reported that she had questioned General Maxwell Thurmond,
head of SouthCom, about the reports that laser weapons were used. "He
responded by saying that was crap, and that lasers were only used by
the U.S. Air Force to pinpoint targets," Trent recalled.